Jock's Place - Comments

Parish Council Headington

nicholas fell — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:49:52 +0100

Hey Jock why don't we arrange to meet and talk shop about a Civil Parish Council for Headington.
Call me on 07517479233. We seem to want to achieve the same political objective.
Area Committees are a waste of space!!!.

I'm sorry to disappoint you,

Oranjepan — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:25:05 +0100

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't think you're all that radical, just a big bit more thoughtful than your average...

Well I guess that means at least that you're radical in comparison to most!

That's the paradox in politics again!

Think Tank Roundup

Matt Wardman — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:50:59 +0100

Jock

Interesting piece, that I may respond to.

The original copy of the TTRU is posted at cassilis.co.uk, and Lib Con and my blog carry cross-posts - could you drop a link to the source:

http://www.cassilis.co.uk/2008/08/think-tank-roundup-we-22nd-august-2008.html

Rgds

Matt

If Xen networking doesn't

Jock — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:12:33 +0100

If Xen networking doesn't kill me first...:)

Good luck with the upgrade,

Andrew — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:01:04 +0100

Good luck with the upgrade, Jock. Particularly looking forward to LiberalALTERnative and F5c.

It could be worse ...

David Gerard — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:33:26 +0100

... maybe. http://notnews.today.com/?p=36

Thanks for all that...

Jock — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:16:57 +0100

...if you don't mind I'll have a think about your comments - I've actually just got stuck into rebuilding a server onto which I need to move this blog before next weekend so my head is in Linux virtualization land!

My first *impression* though is that you are being unduly pessimistic about the ingenuity of innovations and overly protective of the need for the state to mandate things "by force of law" so to speak.

You are right that there is a tension between liberalism and democracy. Personally I don't like being ruled by the "tyranny of the 22%" if that's what we are calling democracy - I realise of course there are routes to reform to make that less of a problem, but whilst there seems no appetite to change a very broken system I'd rather see how much we can do outside that system.

I am a mutualist. Monopoly is anathema to me too. And what you seem to be describing is how monopolies are enabled and protected by the state mandating things.

But let me get back to you on the specific issues you raised with my two examples.

Than the former, even.

Miller 2.0 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:04:38 +0100

Than the former, even.

My view, I suppose, is that

Miller 2.0 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:03:51 +0100

My view, I suppose, is that liberalism often conflicts with democracy, and that I find the latter, despite its many failures, to be less flawed than the latter.

Corporatisation v privatisation

Miller 2.0 — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:02:35 +0100

Hi Jock, firstly, thanks for your comment at my place.

I would like to take you up on this admittedly rather unclipped argument:

"real privatisation, so called "liberalisation" of government functions, should mean the state divesting themselves completely from interference in that policy area. For example, just because DVLA contracts out its computer systems and administration does not mean the registration and licensing of vehicles and drivers has been "privatised". Not bothering with a DVLA at all and allowing insurance companies to work out ways of ensuring the drivers and vehicles they are prepared to insure comply with what they consider to be safe would be. i.e. a different way of working, free from government entirely, and open to proper competition where new ideas and ways of achieving similar ends can be developed. Finding new structures, free from the dead hand of government to do the things we need, rather than what politicians think we ought to need."

Firstly, I'd like to ask why private provision of services formerly provided by public institutions is not privatisation if it happens to be a monopoly? Surely the passing from public to private makes this a privatising process regardless of whether the outcome is monopolistic or not? Isn't privatisation about whether property and services are owned privately or not, rather than on the basis of whether or not they truly compete? In any event, this argument is largely a semantic one.

You make the point that the state should completely divest itself of responsibility for given policy areas, rather than just 'outsourcing' them. But at the end of the day, competing DVLA type providers would, competing or not, still have to provide a service which is both mandated and required by force of law. Competing or not, they still perform a politically necessary public function.

For me, the argument is not about whether privatisation or 'corporatisation' will provide a 'better' service, but which will provide a better service within the constraints of what people actually want from it. At this level, the debate, rather than being about ownership, is in fact about control, and is essential to the understanding of contemporary socialist argument. Do we, the public, and/or stakeholders involved, seek to control a measure democratically, or do we seek to do so as individual and isolated customers? Especially, given the nature of this function, when the safety of the public and civil society (rather than exclusively isolated individuals) is at stake, and when market mechanisms cannot necessarily provide wider social imperatives which may exist of be politically desirous, such as progressive pricing mechanisms for driving licenses?

Public or private, these remain important questions, because of the possible different outcomes. In my view, more often than not, market mechanisms put users of services into 'prisoners dilemma' type situations; take selection of schools by families, and selection of families by schools.

Your passport idea seems to me to be a good example of why this would have to fail. The state would only be able to recognise a given set of ideas that conform to publicly acceptable standards; some competing passports would immediately be eliminated from the game, and those which survive would have a strong incentive, and perhaps the revenue, to lobby government to further deregulate, removing public accountability from a process which only existed in the first place to provide a public benefit. Further, there would be collapses, which would disbenefit many ID holders, and where there were not collapses, there would be takeovers, allowing a monopoly to eventually build up.

In my view, the building of such monopolies must be the ends of the competitive process from a director's point of view.

The result, of course, is extortion, which could be circumvented by letting the state fulfil the function under the control of publicly raised political imperative.

One may as well privatise policing (which is in my view consistent with the logic of libertarianism, but capitalism in any sensible guise would not allow itself to become incapable of effective authoritarianism, despite its urge to deregulate and privatise things not totally necessary to guarantee its own continued survival).

I perhaps ought to say that

Jock — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 11:44:45 +0100

I perhaps ought to say that I know quite a few current and former Thames Valley officers on first name terms and I have always had respect for them and what they do. So I really hope that this one guy in particular is one of a "few bad aples". But if that was my experience of contact with the police I would feel the same.

It is amazing that we

Stephen — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:20:41 +0100

It is amazing that we prevent as many terrorist attacks as we do with utter plonkers like thesde 'protecting' us. I have no doubt that as a law abiding person in 2008, I would consider the police to a significant threat to my well being.

Thanks Mike - I am sure, as

Jock — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:52:54 +0100

Thanks Mike - I am sure, as your comment implies, that the "Fourth" is being abused, and that things like the Patriot Act are severely testing its very existence. At least you've got one though, and in theory, a judicial branch that could uphold it. We have neither. Or at least any judge who would would be condemned as an "activist judge" rather than one fulfilling their constitutional role!

4th Amendment

Mike Haubrich, FCD — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 03:52:40 +0100

If you were to have the likes of our 4th Amendment I would only hope that you would put it to better use than we have.

...and I thought all London

Jock — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 20:42:17 +0100

...and I thought all London policemen eventually moved to Goathland!